D&D General D&D isn't a simulation game, so what is???

[Oofta]

"Categorically distinct" is not, I think, a useful term here. When I use a term like "simulation" in referring to a game, I'm referring to its primary intent and apparent design. As I've noted, it is very difficult (and questionably desirable) for a game to be all the way over on one axis. But you can look at what a game is doing, and apparently trying to do. And that can still convey useful information.

What it can't do, is present a value judgment, except from the perspective of people who consider simulationist/dramatist/gamist to be values by themselves (which there are absolutely people who do, but the very first development of these terms in an RPG was by people trying to make a point that there was value in all three (even if a good part of them treated gamist like the red-headed stepchild), just to different people to different degree). Edit: I know you've indicated this is not your issue here, but I do think its been an undertone of some responses in this thread.

I honestly think a good part of resistance on this question is either from people who (for whatever reason) really want D&D to be able to wear the hat of "simulation" whether it seems to fit or not, or who consider other people saying it doesn't as doing so as a backdoor criticism of it (even though there have been multiple people in this thread who made it clear that they don't consider that particularly a criticism).

(As I've noted, fairly few modern games are particularly simulationist, in part because a preference in that direction has never been that common and shrank over time (I'd speculate it correlates slightly to the diminished percentage of heavy wargamers in the hobby compared to early on. One could question that by noting that the strongest presence of simulation-heavy games took about five or so years to start to land, but I think that had to do with the relatively minimalist tendency of most of the earliest RPGs), so that there's simply not that much of a market for it as compared to the other two wings and combinations thereof).

By your definition, can any game simulate a fictional universe? Or can simulation only be for the real world?

 

[Hussar]

Two things. First, I don't really care if we have a simulation or emulation. To me D&D feels like an action movie in more ways than one, so HP just fits into the theme.

Second, yes I think tracking damage in a fight is far too varied to ever do a good job without encyclopedic set of rules. People talk about breaking up HP into physical and non-physical damage for example. But different individuals will have different ratios, any ratio we come up with will be just as arbitrary as HP. I gave my example a while back of two fighters that endured several rounds of a fight using completely different philosophies, and that didn't even mention different types of (potential) damage.

It's not that we couldn't come up with alternatives (and I'm sure some work quite well for their game's goals), just that the alternatives aren't particularly better at simulation of the real world. In addition I don't think they add to D&D as a game.

Ultimately I guess I simply don't care about the philosophical underpinnings of HP. Any tracking of durability in a fight is going to be chock full of compromise. HP works reasonably well, simulates one type of real world injury, mimics action movie logic, and no one has presented options that are better for D&D. It's not that I haven't thought about it, I simply haven't seen anything better.

P.S. If you think a different system is better, it doesn't add to the conversation to just say Game System X does it better with no explanation of what the system or the goals are.

Again, you are the only one who is making claims of "better" or worse. No one else is making any normative comments at all. Why do you keep insisting on making this about which is better or worse?

 

[Oofta]

Again, you are the only one who is making claims of "better" or worse. No one else is making any normative comments at all. Why do you keep insisting on making this about which is better or worse?

I'm saying that I disagree with your qualifications for something being a simulation. But it's also a silly argument so I don't really care.

 

[Thomas Shey]

By your definition, can any game simulate a fictional universe? Or can simulation only be for the real world?

It absolutely can, as long as the fictional universe is--consistent? Coherent? Capable of its occupants at least potentially understanding how it works?

I believe I argued that Earthdawn actually has a strong simulationist streak, because things that are genre conventions in some settings are overt actual in-world things that have history and that people can understand.

As I've noted, most genre conventions can't be "simulated" because they avowedly aren't things that "exist" in world, and in fact, you usually can't have the occupants of the world actually acknowledge them and have them serve their intended purposes. They're dramatic conceits.

But most fictional universes are more than a set of genre conventions, and some of them have weak genre conventions even when they are there.

As at least a couple of us have brought up, Runequest has a relatively strong simulationist streak. Part of that's easy, because when it comes to things like how combat works, physical actions of characters and so forth, its got a relatively one-to-one correspondence to the real world. But even when you get to the fantastic elements of the game its relatively simulationist, because what's going on in the mechanics corresponds closely to what actually goes on in (and what the knowledgeable understand about) their world. There's not a huge amount of interpretation needed or dissonance between what's going on with the mechanics and what the fiction is expected to tell you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

[Never mind.]

 

[Hussar]

Ok, here's a possible example of how you can generate some information, without needing a highly complex system.

Take the old Villains and Vigillantes game. Old, 80's game of superheroes. Pretty rules light - it was one of those box games like Basic D&D where you got an entire game in a 120 (ish) page booklet.

Now, in V&V, when you calculated your character's HP, you took your weight and divided by 50. That gave you your Body Points. Body Points is where any actual physical damage resided. If you took BP damage, you were going to spend time in the hospital. You then took your Body Points and multiplied it by your Stamina score (typically a 3-18 range, very D&D in that respect) and got your Vitality score. Any successful attacks always had to go to your Vitality first. And, since this was a Supers game, it didn't really do the whole leveling to gain HP thing. You could increase stats and potentially gain more Vitality, but, it wasn't easy.

But, think for a second what information we gain from that system.

1. Bigger=harder to kill. The bigger you are, the more HP you have. Something that isn't present in D&D. After all, my 2 foot tall, 30 pound gnome can easily have more HP than a 600 pound 9 foot Ogre. But, in the V&V system, you know that HP are actually linked to size. There's no way for a human to have more HP than an elephant.

2. You cannot narrate the effects in such a way as to actually cause real physical damage until you get into Body Points. So, when Spider Man gets mobbed by a bunch of thugs, pummeled and kicked until he throws them all off, you know that he isn't actually hurt - perfectly fitting with Superhero as a genre. But, again, the mechanics not only give hints about what narration can be made - a punch from someone is a punch, but, also, what narration can't be made - someone attacking you with a knife isn't actually cutting you until you get into Body Points.

Now, this is a very simple system and has all sorts of flaws and whatnot. I'm certainly not making any claims about it being better. It's easily abused (the whole weight/50 thing is subject to a lot of abuse) and can quite often lead to nonsensical results. As a system, it's not great.

But it IS a more sim system than what you get in D&D.

 

[Hussar]

I'm saying that I disagree with your qualifications for something being a simulation. But it's also a silly argument so I don't really care.

Ok, now I'm rather confused.

YOu're saying that you disagree with @clearstream's qualifications for something being a simulation (because AFAIK, we all agree with @clearstream's definitions) but, only present arguments based on whether or not something is good or bad for D&D. I literally cannot follow your argument here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As a side note, the more modern version of V&V (Mighty Protectors) still uses Power (you're misremembering the name of the calculated value, Hussar; it was also used to fuel some powers), but instead of taking off all damage from Power first, you take off up to a tenth of your Power on it before anything goes to hits. So while you're still energized and not fatigued, you can avoid more of the actual damage at the price of getting more and more tired.

 

[Oofta]

Ok, now I'm rather confused.

YOu're saying that you disagree with @clearstream's qualifications for something being a simulation (because AFAIK, we all agree with @clearstream's definitions) but, only present arguments based on whether or not something is good or bad for D&D. I literally cannot follow your argument here.

I'm saying it's just about as useful to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin at this point.

We have different definitions of simulation. I disagree with what I feel is an extremely narrow minority view. Or maybe it's a majority view amongst a certain cadre. Or maybe it's just that people I actually play with (who are generally not gaming geeks, not that there's anything wrong with being a gaming geek) would not agree with your definition. I think it's useful to count D&D (and HD) as a simulation, but one that on a scale of 1-10 is lower on the scale or about a 3. I'm not sure how you would get a playable game that is focused at the individual person level like D&D to get much better than about a 5-6 because of the complexity you would need.

But I don't care any more. Continue your philosophical debate.

P.S. Angels don't dance. They're far too serious for such frivolity.

 

[Krachek]

after thought, it may be easier to simulate a fantasy world than a real world.
a fantasy world is only a bunch of subjective assumptions that you choose, and thus the simulation may always be online we these assumptions.
In DnD you wake up at full hit points, the simulation always work! But if you compare it to real world it will be a lame!